What is Kobe's legacy if he beats Miami's big 3 in the finals?

[QUOTE=ginobli2311]
the third problem is that if kobe shot the ball 23 times a game for his career....he would have shot around 42% from the field. and there is not way in hell any coach is going to allow that unless he was playing on terrible teams. he had to shoot less because he simply isn't good enough offensively to take 23 shots a game and score efficiently enough.
[/QUOTE]
In the seasons Kobe has put up more than 22 shots per game, his FG% was 45-46%. Don't know where you got 42% from.

He would have probably been putting up 20 shots a game by his 3rd-4th year had he started on the Hornets instead of 5th IMO.

The Lakers may beat the Heat. Kobe is not the Lakers. He's their best player (arguably best in the league), but in the end he is just one player. It's still a team sport, haters and stans.

Just a b-ball fan, but Kobe took me over the top this year. He has many reasons to win the respect of fans, but this year, for some reason, won me. I think it is because I realized the merits of a true leader vs. the merits of someone I was really hoping would become a true leader.

[QUOTE=New York Knicks]Any analyst will tell you the Lakers are still the favorites. No combination of wing players can battle against LA's ridiculous frontcourt rotation.[/QUOTE]



this.

[QUOTE=lakers_forever]The Lakers may beat the Heat. Kobe is not the Lakers. He's their best player (arguably best in the league), but in the end he is just one player. It's still a team sport, haters and stans.[/QUOTE]

This, why does the lakers winning another championship(notice I didn't say Kobe) suddenly vault Kobe over players who are obviously better than him? Kobe is in the top 10 already, no amount of championships is going to get him past #5.

Sure he may win more championships than guys like Wilt, Kareem, and Jordan but all three of those players were simply better players than Kobe.

People on this board value TEAM championships WAY too much when trying to determine who the best PLAYER is. Had Kobe played for the Wizards his entire career and won 0 championships, this same board wouldn't even have him in the top 15, even though he's the exact same player who's rated 7-10 by most posters as a laker.

Why does playing for a better team make you a better player? Players should be judged by how well THEY play, not how well their TEAM plays.

[QUOTE=ginobli2311]the problem with your assertion is that kobe was not ready to play in the playoffs or regular season big minutes his first 2 years. he would have been awful playing a lot of minutes and it actually would have stunted his growth. trust me....if he was ready....they would have played.

the second problem is that kobe would have much less titles playing with a "scottie pippen"....in fact, i don't see how kobe could have won even 1 title in his first 8 years without either playing with shaq or duncan. so that point holds no water at all.

the third problem is that if kobe shot the ball 23 times a game for his career....he would have shot around 42% from the field. and there is not way in hell any coach is going to allow that unless he was playing on terrible teams. so if kobe wanted to win (which he clearly does)...he had to shoot less because he simply isn't good enough offensively to take 23 shots a game and score efficiently enough.

you can't have it both ways. kobe would not have won 1 ring if he didn't have shaq or duncan for his first 8 years....kobe was simply not good enough to be the number 1 option on a title team during that time. yes....his ppg would definitely have gone up....but his efficiency would have gone down as well.

i do agree that playing "what if" is sometimes stupid. and i certainly don't think that jordan needs to be credited with another title because he retired. but if you do play the "what if" game.....at least look at it from both sides.[/QUOTE]

I don't always agree with your takes, and I don't completely agree on this one, either...BUT, I do appalud your arguments. There is no reason for someone as knowledgeable as yourself to have a negative rep here.

[QUOTE=Poochymama]This, why does the lakers winning another championship(notice I didn't say Kobe) suddenly vault Kobe over players who are obviously better than him? Kobe is in the top 10 already, no amount of championships is going to get him past #5.

Sure he may win more championships than guys like Wilt, Kareem, and Jordan but all three of those players were simply better players than Kobe.

People on this board value TEAM championships WAY too much when trying to determine who the best PLAYER is. Had Kobe played for the Wizards his entire career and won 0 championships, this same board wouldn't even have him in the top 15, even though he's the exact same player who's rated 7-10 by most posters as a laker.

Why does playing for a better team make you a better player? Players should be judged by how well THEY play, not how well their TEAM plays.[/QUOTE]

I mostly agree with you on this. It is a TEAM game, not one-on-one. Still, there HAS to be value in LEADING teams to championships, too. After all, the game is still about winning. Russell's play is very under-rated here, and I believe that too many casual fans look at his offensive numbers and automatically assume that he was a "Ben Wallace" type of player. Nothing could be further from the truth. He did whatever it took to win. If he had to average 18 ppg and 24 rpg, he did. If he had to put up a 30-40 in a game seven (which included 14-17 from the FT line), he did. If he had to average 18 ppg and shoot .702 in the Finals, he did. If he had to lead his team in scoring in a Finals' series, he did. And that gets back to the point of LEADING a team to a title.

I am not naive enough to believe that Russell could have led the 62-63 Warriors to even a winning season, much less a title...but when he was given the right personnel, he LED them to a title. Too often we just take these things for granted. The bottom line is that he LED his teams to 27 playoff series wins in 29 tries, and 11 rings in 13 seasons (as well as two straight NCAA titles, and a Gold Medal.) All of that HAS to count for something in these GOAT discussions.

[QUOTE=KenneBell]In the seasons Kobe has put up more than 22 shots per game, his FG% was 45-46%. Don't know where you got 42% from.

He would have probably been putting up 20 shots a game by his 3rd-4th year had he started on the Hornets instead of 5th IMO.[/QUOTE]

one season is a huge difference from a career. kobe shoots 45% from the field on 19 shots for his career.

if he were to shoot 4 more times per game. that is 21% more shots per game.....his fg% would drop. that is a simple fact. there is no debating this. why? simply because those extra 4 shots would not be of the same quality as the others. they would be most likely forces.

all evidence supports me on this. if kobe can only make 45% of 19 shots.....no way in hell he is making over 42 or 43% of 23 shots. think about that.....he would be taking 21% more shots per game. that is a ton.

my guess is that we would see something around 10 of 23 per game averages for kobe.

[QUOTE=jlauber]I mostly agree with you on this. It is a TEAM game, not one-on-one. Still, there HAS to be value in LEADING teams to championships, too. After all, the game is still about winning. Russell's play is very under-rated here, and I believe that too many casual fans look at his offensive numbers and automatically assume that he was a "Ben Wallace" type of player. Nothing could be further from the truth. He did whatever it took to win. If he had to average 18 ppg and 24 rpg, he did. If he had to put up a 30-40 in a game seven (which included 14-17 from the FT line), he did. If he had to average 18 ppg and shoot .702 in the Finals, he did. If he had to lead his team in scoring in a Finals' series, he did. And that gets back to the point of LEADING a team to a title.

I am not naive enough to believe that Russell could have led the 62-63 Warriors to even a winning season, much less a title...but when he was given the right personnel, he LED them to a title. Too often we just take these things for granted. The bottom line is that he LED his teams to 27 playoff series wins in 29 tries, and 11 rings in 13 seasons (as well as two straight NCAA titles, and a Gold Medal.) All of that HAS to count for something in these GOAT discussions.[/QUOTE]

totally agree. but there has to be varying degrees of credit for leading a team to a title. for example....wade winning and playing amazing in 06 has to yield him more credit than kobe winning this year while playing two subpar series and a sub par finals with the most loaded team in the league.

i feel like that is where people on here really struggle. they equate shaq/kobe title in 02 to duncan's in 03. nothing could be further from the truth. what duncan did in 03 blows that out of the water.

all titles should not yield the same amount of credit for the best player. kg doesn't deserve the same amount of credit that hakeem does....etc.

that part of the ISH thinking really needs to improve.

Ginobli...Im pretty sure Kobe has been shooting around 45-46% while being the Number 1 Option...Which is over a 6 yr span...In which he has shot the ball more than 19 times per game.

[QUOTE=ginobli2311]one season is a huge difference from a career. kobe shoots 45% from the field on 19 shots for his career.

if he were to shoot 4 more times per game. that is 21% more shots per game.....his fg% would drop. that is a simple fact. there is no debating this. why? simply because those extra 4 shots would not be of the same quality as the others. they would be most likely forces.

[B]all evidence supports me on this.[/B] if kobe can only make 45% of 19 shots.....no way in hell he is making over 42 or 43% of 23 shots. think about that.....he would be taking 21% more shots per game. that is a ton.

my guess is that we would see something around 10 of 23 per game averages for kobe.[/QUOTE]
None of the evidence supports you on this. 5 seasons he has averaged 22+ FGA, and in every one of those he has shot 45+%.

[QUOTE=branslowski]Ginobli...Im pretty sure Kobe has been shooting around 45-46% while being the Number 1 Option...Which is over a 6 yr span...In which he has shot the ball more than 19 times per game.[/QUOTE]

and your point is? we are talking about kobe shooting 23 times a game. are you saying his career fg% would not drop if kobe averaged 23 shots a game? keep in mind that is a 21% increase in shots per game.

now....kobe has only shot 23 or more shots per game in 2 seasons. it stands to logic and reason that kobe's fg% would take a hit if he took 21% more shots per game....especially if he was playing in meaningful games on winning teams like he has throughout his career.

am i missing something?

[QUOTE=barbaroi]None of the evidence supports you on this. 5 seasons he has averaged 22+ FGA, and in every one of those he has shot 45+%.[/QUOTE]

and he's played 14 seasons.

so what are you people saying?

are you honestly saying that kobe could take 21% more shots per game and maintain his fg% for his career?

i'm sorry....but that is just idiotic.

[QUOTE=ginobli2311]and he's played 14 seasons.

so what are you people saying?

are you honestly saying that kobe could take 21% more shots per game and maintain his fg% for his career?

i'm sorry....but that is just idiotic.[/QUOTE]
First of all, 22 is only 15% more than 19. Second of all, he's shown that he can do it, so you have no argument whatsoever.

[QUOTE=barbaroi]First of all, 22 is only 15% more than 19. Second of all, he's shown that he can do it, so you have no argument whatsoever.[/QUOTE]

we were talking about 23 dude...not 22. first of all.

and just because he has shown he can do it in a few seasons of his career does not mean he could average that for his career.

how do you not see this.

do you not understand basic math? imagine a rookie kobe having to shoot 15 shots rather than 6. or a 2nd year kobe having to shoot 20 shots rather than 12. and so on and so on.

i just doesn't work.

again....we are talking about CAREER...not prime....not individual seasons. CAREER dude.....CAREER.

I remember seeing a stat last year that if Kobe were to hit his next 3000 shots or something, he would still have a lower shooting % than Jordan.

Ginobli...I understand what your saying from a career standpoint...But if you wanna put things in perspective...He has BEEN shooting more than 19shot pg for 6yr span as the Num 1 option and is shooting around 45-46%...And basically, if we wanna use an "If" he shoots about 23 shots...Then we have to assume he would be the num 1 option as he is now in-which he is shooting about 45-46% while shooting more than 19 shots pg.

I understand you dislike Bryant...But I really fail to see how you cannot put these 2 things together.


Anyway, arguing "if's" can go nowhere.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]I remember seeing a stat last year that if Kobe were to hit his next 3000 shots or something, he would still have a lower shooting % than Jordan.[/QUOTE]
Then you remember a false stat, because he would only have had to have hit 834 more, or about 59 per season , or about .95 per game to have averaged the same FG%.

[QUOTE=branslowski]Ginobli...I understand what your saying from a career standpoint...But if you wanna put things in perspective...He has BEEN shooting more than 19shot pg for 6yr span as the Num 1 option and is shooting around 45-46%...And basically, if we wanna use an "If" he shoots about 23 shots...Then we have to assume he would be the num 1 option as he is now in-which he is shooting about 45-46% while shooting more than 19 shots pg.

I understand you dislike Bryant...But I really fail to see how you cannot put these 2 things together.


Anyway, arguing "if's" can go nowhere.[/QUOTE]

this has nothing to do with kobe actually. it can be used for any player.

it is absurd to think that kobe could maintain his fg% while taking 21% more shots for his career. its really not possible.

you can't pick 6 years out of 14 as evidence.

i can cherry pick a number of years he would have had no chance to shoot even 40% while taking at least 23 shots a game.

now....if you want to talk about his prime only....then yes....kobe could shoot 23 shots a game and maintain around 45% from the field.

but again...we are talking about his entire career....not just his prime.

for example. kobe would have had to average around 15 shots as a rookie. he shot 41.7%.....if he took 9 more shots per game....at best he would shoot 38%.

same can be applied to his 2nd year. he shot 42.8 percent. his next 2 years he only shot 15.6 shots and 17.9 respectively. in 04 he shot 18 shots at 43.8%.....if he had to take 5 more shots per game that would take a hit as well.

in 05 he shot 43.3% on 20 shots. increase that by 3 and it drops again.

sorry dude....i just don't see where you are coming from at all.

so you think jordan could have shot 27 shots per game and maintained his averages? LOL

[QUOTE=barbaroi]Then you remember a false stat, because he would only have had to have hit 834 more, or about 59 per season , or about .95 per game to have averaged the same FG%.[/QUOTE]

Maybe the number was 1000 or something. I forgot the exact number. Point was that it was an impossible number of consecutive shots that Bryant would have to hit.

Barring the near impossible...I don't see Kobe surpassing Russell or MJ on any all-time list. IMHO, even two more rings would not be enough. Realistically I believe he could finish as high as #3...but even that is a stretch.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Barring the near impossible...I don't see Kobe surpassing Russell or MJ on any all-time list. IMHO, even two more rings would not be enough. Realistically I believe he could finish as high as #3...but even that is a stretch.[/QUOTE]


What does your top 10 All time list look like?

[QUOTE=jlauber]Barring the near impossible...I don't see Kobe surpassing Russell or MJ on any all-time list. IMHO, even two more rings would not be enough. Realistically I believe he could finish as high as #3...but even that is a stretch.[/QUOTE]

didn't you know that kobe is magical. he can shoot 21% more shots per game and maintain his fg% and winning.....

where are these extra 4 shots per game coming from? that is my question. are they coming from shaq and gasol and fisher? why does kobe average only 20 shots per game in the playoffs if he would be just as effective shooting 23?

have you ever seen kobe be shy about shooting? it just doesn't make any sense.

[QUOTE=Heilige]What does your top 10 All time list look like?[/QUOTE]

i'll bite:

1. jordan
2. russell
3. magic
4. kareem
5. wilt
6. duncan
7. shaq
8. bird
9. hakeem
10. kobe

[QUOTE=jlauber]Barring the near impossible...[B]I don't see Kobe surpassing Russell or MJ on any all-time list.[/B] IMHO, even two more rings would not be enough. Realistically I believe he could finish as high as #3...but even that is a stretch.[/QUOTE]

Didn't you initially have Kobe ranked higher than Jordan? :oldlol:

Ginobli....If Jordan shot the ball over 27 times pg for about 7 straight yrs and avg 49% shooting during that span...Then yes, I would assume BEING the num 1 option and taking that many shots, he would be able to do it over an entire career.

If every since Kobe's been shooting over 20 shots per game his fg% is at 45-46%...Then I assure you he would still shoot it if he avg over 20 shots for an entire career.


And I know as it shows right now...His fg shots per game at 19 and his fg% which is 45%...Draws you to an conclusion that his % would go down if the shots went up...But why dismiss the FACT that when his shots have been up over 20pg over the last 6 season that his fg% is at 46% throughout it?..It gives a clear indication that once he starts getting up shots, he can actually get in a groove and keep his fg% at 45-46%.

I know your stance on this player wont open your eyes and atleast intake this perspective, but c'mon dude.

[QUOTE=Heilige]What does your top 10 All time list look like?[/QUOTE]

Mine has changed some since I came to ISH. There are a number of quality posters here, and after reading their takes, and doing my own research, this is MY current list...

1. Russell
2. MJ
3. Magic
4. Wilt
5. Kareem
6. Shaq
7. Duncan
8. Kobe
9. Hakeem
10. Bird

Now, some will wonder why I have Wilt at #4 with "only" two rings. The fact was, Wilt was brilliant in the majority of his post-seasons. He had two teams, the 61-62 Warriors and the 64-65 Sixers that he almost carried to titles. He had three other teams that either came within a few points of winning it all (the '68 76ers and the '69 Lakers)...and the third was cheated out of a game in the Finals (game five of the '70 Finals.) So, Wilt came within an eye-lash of winning up to five more titles. Furthermore, Wilt either outplayed, or dominated his opposing centers in virtually every post-season.

Those that claim that Wilt was a "choker" or a "failure" obviously have NO CLUE about his play in the post-season. Russell was a "winner" and a "clutch" player, to be sure...but H2H, at BEST, he neutralized Wilt just enough for his TEAM's to win. Had Wilt put up a 4-3 game seven and been outscored and outrebounded by 21-24, then I would say that he was a choker. But, he put up the 21-24 game, basically on one leg, against Reed's 4-3 game in that game seven of the '70 Finals (yes, Reed was on one leg too...and only played a half.) Or how about Wilt's game seven in the 65 ECF's? He took a 40-40 team to a game seven, one-point loss against the 62-18 Celtics, and in the process he outscored Russell (who admittedly played well), 30-15, outshot Russell, 12-15 to 7-16, and outrebounded Russell, 32-29. I could list MANY more BIG games that Chamberlain had in his post-season career, but I won't bother now. Needless to say, though, that...(A), he faced a HOF center in 112 of his 160 post-season games,...and (B), his teams were outgunned by HOFers in EVERY post-season he played. BTW, his CAREER game seven numbers, in NINE games? 24.4 ppg, 26.3 rpg, and .626 shooting.

[QUOTE=branslowski]Ginobli....If Jordan shot the ball over 27 times pg for about 7 straight yrs and avg 49% shooting during that span...Then yes, I would assume BEING the num 1 option and taking that many shots, he would be able to do it over an entire career.

If every since Kobe's been shooting over 20 shots per game his fg% is at 45-46%...Then I assure you he would still shoot it if he avg over 20 shots for an entire career.


And I know as it shows right now...His fg shots per game at 19 and his fg% which is 45%...Draws you to an conclusion that his % would go down if the shots went up...But why dismiss the FACT that when his shots have been up over 20pg over the last 6 season that his fg% is at 46% throughout it?..It gives a clear indication that once he starts getting up shots, he can actually get in a groove and keep his fg% at 45-46%.

I know your stance on this player wont open your eyes and atleast intake this perspective, but c'mon dude.[/QUOTE]


why is this so hard to understand. we are talking about [B]23[/B] shots per game. kobe has only shot over this number twice...not 7 times. so i have no idea what you are talking about. i have already stated this "if we are just talking about kobe's last 6 years or his prime....i think he could shoot right at his current career fg%"....i totally agree with you on that

here is your problem:

what about kobe's first 4 years? do you realize how many more shots he would have had to take during that time? during his first 8 years.....where are these extra 4 shots coming from?

here are the years that kobe would have had no chance to take 23 or more shots and shoot 45.5%

97
98
99
00
04
05

that is 6 years of his career. also....you keep referencing 20 shots. we are talking about 23 shots. this is a huge difference.....

and again...the initial debate was not only about shot volume but was about maintaining winning as well. so again.....how are the lakers going to win the first title in 00 with kobe shooting close to 25% more shots? it just does not compute.

and if kobe did not take any more shots early on and back loaded them all late in his career....he would be averaging around 29 or 30 shots per game. and there is no way in hell he could maintain his fg% or win while shooting so much.

sorry....i think its very fair to say an increase of 21% more shots per game for his career would result in at least a 2% drop in fg%.

side note. kobe's three highest shooting attempts per game of his career resulted in two first round exits and a 2nd round exit. not counting an injury plagued 05 season and his first 2 years. those years are the worst three years (success wise) of kobe's career.

:lol

At the moment...I really dont feel like debating ppl's player Rankings..

But lol Jblur...Russel over Jordan??...Bird at 10?...Magic that high ahead of Bird?...

[QUOTE=branslowski]:lol

At the moment...I really dont feel like debating ppl's player Rankings..

But lol Jblur...Russel over Jordan??...Bird at 10?...Magic that high ahead of Bird?...[/QUOTE]

What is so drastically wrong about Russell over Jordan? I mean yeah, I have Jordan over Russell, but I see nothing wrong with having it the other way around. It is, after all, an OPINION.

Ginobli...I do understand where your coming from..And I wasn't talking about Kobe with an career of 29 shots pg....I was more talking about him being at 23...And I def think he would still be at 46% shooting.

It isn't like 46% shooting on 23 shots would be some insane number for Kobe..


Anyway...I really dislike debating "If" factors...Things that wont happen or didn't happen...Hypothetical opinions and such...


In the end...Kobe leading his team to 3 straight Finals shooting over 20 shots pg is just alright with me..:cheers:

[QUOTE=Poochymama]What is so drastically wrong about Russell over Jordan? I mean yeah, I have Jordan over Russell, but I see nothing wrong with having it the other way around. It is, after all, an OPINION.[/QUOTE]

IDK...Im prob really Bias against the 60's...Cause I don't think too highley of Wilt or Russel...I watched some games of theirs on youtube, ESPN Classics, NBATV, exc...Just not feeling the epic competition they had...Not fair, I know, but still...

I eliminate myself from Russel/Wilt convo's.

[QUOTE=branslowski]Ginobli...I do understand where your coming from..And I wasn't talking about Kobe with an career of 29 shots pg....I was more talking about him being at 23...And I def think he would still be at 46% shooting.

It isn't like 46% shooting on 23 shots would be some insane number for Kobe..


Anyway...I really dislike debating "If" factors...Things that wont happen or didn't happen...Hypothetical opinions and such...


In the end...Kobe leading his team to 3 straight Finals shooting over 20 shots pg is just alright with me..:cheers:[/QUOTE]

and that is fine. i don't really understand where you are coming from because there are just as many years where the evidence supports my side.

the main problem i have with your argument is that you think all shots would be the same quality. and that could not be further from the truth. at some point (in terms of an entire career)....just lumping on 21% more shots is going to result in a higher number of those added shots being of bad quality.

that is our big difference. where are these shots coming from? kobe would have to take at least 2 more bad shots per game to get to 23 for his career. and also....i think your numbers are way off. kobe has only shot over 21 shots per game 5 times in his career. he's only shot 23 or more twice in his career. that just isn't enough evidence to support you at all.

i simply don't think any player could take that many more shots per game and maintain efficiency levels....especially players that already shoot the ball around 20 times a game.

i'm out. i respect your opinions....but i really think you are way off on this one.

[QUOTE=branslowski]IDK...Im prob really Bias against the 60's...Cause I don't think too highley of Wilt or Russel...I watched some games of theirs on youtube, ESPN Classics, NBATV, exc...Just not feeling the epic competition they had...Not fair, I know, but still...

I eliminate myself from Russel/Wilt convo's.[/QUOTE]


Overall, I would say the athleticism/skill of the average player back then was a notch below the players of today, but don't confuse that with the athleticism/skill of the elite players back then, which IMO hasn't really changed at all.

[QUOTE=Poochymama]Overall, I would say the athleticism/skill of the average player back then was a notch below the players of today, but don't confuse that with the athleticism/skill of the elite players back then, which IMO hasn't really changed at all.[/QUOTE]

Agreed...But while watching it...I just can't help but to say to myself..."Man, Wilt is dominating these slow unathletic f*cks...Man, LeBron would dunk on these lames all day...LeBron would prob avg 50ppg 15reb 17ast against these guy's"....Which is totally wrong of me, but...

[QUOTE=ginobli2311]i'll bite:

1. jordan
2. russell
3. magic
4. kareem
5. wilt
[B]6. duncan
7. shaq[/B]
8. bird
9. hakeem
10. kobe[/QUOTE]

Please expand on this, what's the criteria you used in making such a bold deliberation?

[QUOTE=crosso√er]Please expand on this, what's the criteria you used in making such a bold deliberation?[/QUOTE]

what do you mean?

i'll assume that its because i have duncan over shaq.

simple. duncan won just as much with less. 11 straight seasons of 50 or more wins. 4 titles as the number 1 option vs 3.

mostly though. defense. i have duncan as one of the 5 greatest defenders of all time. shaq "might" crack the top 50. that gap is huge. duncan could do everything on defense....and he did.

i could go on and on. shaq had a better peak....but duncan is the overall better player.

[QUOTE=ginobli2311]what do you mean?

i'll assume that its because i have duncan over shaq.

simple. duncan won just as much with less. 11 straight seasons of 50 or more wins. 4 titles as the number 1 option vs 3.

mostly though. defense. i have duncan as one of the 5 greatest defenders of all time. shaq "might" crack the top 50. that gap is huge. duncan could do everything on defense....and he did.

i could go on and on. shaq had a better peak....but duncan is the overall better player.[/QUOTE]

This.


Although, I don't agree with the "Duncan won with less"...Which shows you could be punishing Shaq for having good teamamtes...But having good teamates can take away from your statistics aswell so...

All in all...I agree that Duncan>>>Shaq...imo

[QUOTE=Poochymama]What the heck??? By far the most logical thing I've ever seen this kid post. Did someone hack his account???[/QUOTE]
Kid? STFU. :facepalm

[QUOTE=Poochymama]


Had Kobe played for the Wizards his entire career and won 0 championships, this same board wouldn't even have him in the top 15,
[/QUOTE]
lol. People have Kobe that high because he's an incredible player individually. Kobe could have 0 Chips and he'd be in the top 15 simply based on his accomplishments, peak/prime play, and playoff performances. Kobe haters are retarded.